To be fair, this was a decision to hear the case, not the decision on the case itself. I'm glad they decided this way, but the three that voted to hear it could easily still have voted against the motion itself.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Grand Unified Election Thread 2: What is the difference between Biden and Dump?
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, this was a decision to hear the case, not the decision on the case itself. I'm glad they decided this way, but the three that voted to hear it could easily still have voted against the motion itself.
psych
Well-known member
Perez is still there. He’s head of the DNC. Bustos stepped down so that Maloney could take over as head of the DCCC.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Oh, shoot. I screwed up then. Thanks. Perez still needs to go then.
Yeah, I think this is correct.
You can read the dissents in the link below.
Basically, this was a Petition to have the Wisconsin Supreme Court take this case on as an "original" case, rather than go through the normal channels of starting at the trial court level, then working it's way through the system of appeals to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. I assume in Wisconsin there must be some law that certain cases can originate in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, but I have no idea what they might be.
The majority denied the petition and told Trump and his supporters that if they have a beef, take it up at the lower court level and the Supreme Court will decide it when it gets there properly. The three conservative justices dissented for reasons that they spelled out.
In some instances they thought Wisconsin law actually allowed for original jurisdiction. One judge wrote that the public often misunderstands what a denial of a petition means and that it's better for the Court to actually decide the issue. It was also pointed out that with respect to this dispute, speed was of the essence simply because of the need to certify electors and get the election concluded.
Now, would they have supported Trump if called upon to actually judge the case? Who knows, but it certainly can't be ruled out. But your take on the vote is correct, I believe.
Here is the link, for those interested.
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/...cle_417d8254-d1b3-5ef0-8461-aae307f11fe7.html
Spartanforlife4
Generic Catchy Message
https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1326589302797635586?s=21
Wasserman has been posting the results of each state as they certify.
44/51 have certified.
38/44 saw Trump’s margin get worse. A couple were only 0.1, but most were 3+
2/44 saw them stay the same. Nevada and DC. Though to be fair to DC, they’re already at like +87 so that’s going to be fairly static.
The four that went more for Trump? Arkansas (.7) Utah (2.4), Florida (2.2), and Illinois (by .1).
Wasserman has been posting the results of each state as they certify.
44/51 have certified.
38/44 saw Trump’s margin get worse. A couple were only 0.1, but most were 3+
2/44 saw them stay the same. Nevada and DC. Though to be fair to DC, they’re already at like +87 so that’s going to be fairly static.
The four that went more for Trump? Arkansas (.7) Utah (2.4), Florida (2.2), and Illinois (by .1).
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Wait, so Dominion switched votes TO Trump? https://twitter.com/marceelias/status/1334870198860525573
The lawsuits would be hilarious in any context that wasn't sedition.
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Also, are you allowed to accuse "all imaginable varieties of voting fraud" without then specifically listing every single possible way one could imagine voting fraud and then proving how and where it happened?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Cool your jets, he would be going, anyway. It's a high turnover position. There have been 27 in 76 years.
Perez was not the problem. Granted, he also wasn't the solution, but Perez is a process guy and our process was fine. The results weren't great but we won't really know why for years.
Much like Michael Steele during his time with the RNC, the Chair is powerless to affect most things - especially party ideological strategy. The one area they hold sway in is the competence with which the machine runs and, fair's fair, also very much like Steele, Perez ran a tight ship. Look at the incompetent tenures of McAuliffe and Kaine for comparison, and then the train wreck of DWS.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
I'll agree to disagree.
My understanding is that the briefs only ever have vaguely referenced fraud and have not explicitly alleged it, skirting that line. Not sure how up to date that information is.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
I believe this is industry best practice:
The most important thing is ding dong, the Clintonistas are dead. We can finally say goodbye to that long march of FAIL.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Yeah I didnt read much on it but they only said they should be able to hear it. Voting to hear it is not the epic meltdown inducing decision some have made it out to be. (mostly on Twitter) Since there is a time crunch on this it isnt out of the norm that much. Nothing in the dissent says that they think Trump was right and the challenge was correct, just that it was their job to hear it to make sure the people are represented since the WEC is non-elected officials. By denying the motion they guarantee the results without any review.
Now...the stupidity is that there should have never been a challenge in the first place and certainly not one that violates the Equal Protection Clause. If the dissenters were smart they would have put that in their dissent (in better language) to show they saw the flaws but that the challenge still deserved its day. (speaking as a full on layman who doesnt know the ins and outs of how these decisions are written so I probably am way off)
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
"We cheated, so you must have cheated BETTER!"
Other than knowing he is a UND hockey fan, I don't.
I checked and it appears he hasn't posted at siouxsports since late October, but I am rarely over there so I don't really know if he is an active poster or not.
I did check his member site here and it shows his last activity as having "visited" this site early this afternoon, so maybe he's lurking somewhere, avoiding all of the madness.
I'm fine. Just been very busy. Thanks for the concern.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
As a challenger, Biden acquitted himself well. He won 51.4% of the popular vote. That is better than Reagan in 1980 (50.7%). By my count, only 4 other challengers won a greater percentage of the popular vote.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
He did great. Sitting presidents have huge institutional advantages. Typically the only time they lose is when there are strong third party challenges.
Biden was the perfect candidate for this cycle. I love Bernie and Liz but they would not have won. Biden won and it wasn't even close by historical standards.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Given how the Right projects, their specific fixation on voting machines flipping results is highly suspect. Remember Diebold in OH in 2000 and 2004? Methinks maybe the GOP has gotten away with this before and now simply lashes out accusing us of what they do in typically Nazi fashion.
- Status